Is it possible for African farmers to feed Africa? Let’s look at the case study of Mali.

In Mali, 85% of the country’s population is engaged in agriculture. We use 15% of the country’s budget on agriculture, which is even more than what is recommended by the African Union (10%). And every year, nearly half of the total remittances sent back from families outside Mali is also invested in agriculture — this in itself exceeds the contribution from external funding by bilateral and multilateral agencies.

Since its inception, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa’s (AGRA) total investment in Mali represents just 1% of Mali’s own agriculture budget. So AGRA cannot claim to be transforming the country’s agricultural sector structurally, by putting in only 1% of public funds. That is peanuts in terms of an investment budget. So psychologically, African countries may feel trapped in this model, but if you look at how much they have been putting in, it is a very very small amount of money.

More than half of the resources the Alliance allocated to Mali has been drawn into the input system of the program (promoting the sale of chemical fertilizers in small villages). The Bill Gates funded program is pushing for a Green Revolution through fertilizers and hybrid seeds. Yet, the majority of farmers, pastoralists, and fisherfolk use farmers’ seeds, local breeds of cattle and local species of fish, exchanged by farmers and researched by local institutions. In West African countries, more than 70% of the seeds that are used in production systems is recognized to be farmer’s seeds.

In 2008 we did an assessment of where AGRA money was going and we realized that half the resources were used to fund international institutions (most of these were members of CropLife International, a trade association of agrochemical companies). That is problematic.

Why didn’t AGRA’s Green Revolution work in Mali?

Mali has a strong farmers’ movement that has been mobilizing, fighting against this system since the very beginning, and putting emphasis on agroecology.

An excerpt from the new report:

Mali presents a stark contrast to most other AGRA countries, which may well be due to the government’s more cautious approach to the widespread promotion of the Green Revolution technology package. Mainly small-scale food producers and other non-governmental organizations actively mobilized to stop AGRA from imposing its model in the country. Since democracy was restored in the 1990s, small-scale food producer groups among others have played a role in government policy, even drafting the 2004 Agricultural Orientation Law. Mali’s Coalition for the Protection of African Genetic Heritage (COPAGEN) convened organizations from across Africa to engage with AGRA and dissuade their governments from participating by launching the 2007 campaign “Agroecological Alternatives to AGRA”. Mali’s 2010 seed law recognized farmers’ rights to seeds, and a revision currently under consideration, written with the active involvement of small-scale food producer organizations, will further enshrine those rights. This leaves small scale food producers with greater sovereignty over the seeds and other inputs they choose to adopt.

Although AGRA operates in Mali, it does not enjoy the same level of influence as in many other countries. Maize has been the priority crop, as with a number of other AGRA countries, with input subsidies supporting crop expansion. The area planted with maize has more than doubled, and yields have increased significantly. But because Mali has low population densities and some “uncultivated” land available, this has not come at the expense of traditional crops, as is the case in other AGRA countries. Sorghum, millet, and pulses remain the country’s most important food crops, with sorghum and millet planted on three times the land that is now under maize production.

Poverty and hunger have dramatically decreased. Extreme poverty (USD-$1.90 per person per day) was reduced by more than half since 2006, to 24 percent. The number of the population suffering chronic hunger decreased from 1.4to 1.2 million people and almost reduced by half in percentage terms between the three-year averages for 2004–2006 and 2016–2018. This progress may be attributed more to Mali’s resistance to AGRA’s Green Revolution policies and programmes rather than to their implementation.

Read the full report: False Promises: The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)

Mali was producing something like 2.5 million tons of cereals in the country in 2002; (this includes varieties of millet, sorghum, wheat, fonio). Currently it produces around 10 million tons of cereal—more than 30% of this is millet and sorghum, the biggest share compared to all other cereals.

If AGRA truly wants to help the farming community, reduce hunger and improve nutrition, it should support the production of such crops that are more nutritious—crops that people know how to grow and are culturally appropriate to eat. Instead, they are focused on promoting maize and rice, which require the intensive use of water, pesticides, fertilizers and “improved” seeds. So how can they say they are concerned about nutrition?

What they prioritize is linking the African population to international seed companies and fertilizer companies. When the soil stops being able to regenerate, they will have to keep increasing their fertilizer use and become dependent.

In the case of Mali, AGRA did not succeed because the farmers’ movement refused to cooperate with AGRA. We have opted for agroecology in our country. In Mali we cannot separate cattle pastoralism and cereal production and fish production (the country is the biggest river fish producer in West Africa, and the second largest producer of rice after Nigeria). No GMOs are allowed in Mali.

If you look at West Africa, we produce more than 59 millions tonnes of cereals, and that is far beyond our needs if we look at the population of this region. With millet, for instance we have had a 3% growth in the region of West Africa; from 2008 to 2011. And with sorghum, it’s about 18% if you look at the figures since 2008. This production is already feeding the West African region. These crops don’t benefit from any support from AGRA. The push from farmers’ organizations to invest in these [true climate-resilient, nutritious crops] has led to this increase of production. Improvements in nutrition have been promoted by smallholder farmers.

There is a need to put more resources into smallholder farmers and put more resources towards the agroecological systems which dominate in Mali. We are in a position to increase production in a sustainable way.

So yes, African farmers can feed Africa, and go even beyond that, creating more wealth in a sustainable way. But there are some structural issues that we need to address.

Reorganizing the market system

AGRA has been reorienting Africa’s production system to the international market. Yet, more than 70% of the continent’s produce is sold in territorial markets or open public markets; less than 20% of the food that is produced and consumed goes through international markets. So we are sure this continent can feed itself.

We need to improve our policies and market infrastructure, especially for territorial markets, where most of the food is circulating in countries like Mali. For instance, toilets for women, or a creche for childcare in markets would be transformative for women vendors. Clean water, good roads, and solar lights would help make markets be more accessible and stay open safely at night.

There is a need for better storage so that less food (especially cereals) is lost between harvesting and the plate. We need to invest more in harvesting and processing and marketing. It is important to focus on such downstream infrastructure issues to add value at the rural level, so that cities can be fed by rural areas in a more sustainable way. Several women’s groups, cooperatives and youth groups processing food need to be supported in their work.

If we can better control food loss and waste, which is about 30% in parts of Africa (in part through more investment in transport, harvesting and processing), then we can not only feed the population, but also contribute in a sustainable way to produce more than enough for our needs.

At the policy level: we don’t need the homogenized policies that AGRA is interested in supporting. Africa is diverse, and we need to support a food system that acknowledges that. Our vision of food sovereignty should not be undermined through policies and the financial system.

Agroecology is key

The agroecological perspective that we are pushing for in the continent will be key to supporting small farmers in feeding Africa.

This contribution was transcribed from a talk and interview, and edited for clarity and length.

Link to watch the full webinar recording: https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=593178444725692 (1:02 to 1:20)

About the author: Mamadou Goïta is a development Socio-Economist and specialist in education and training systems. He is the Executive Director of the Institute for Research and Promotion of Alternatives in Development (IRPAD). He works closely with farmers’ organizations in Africa and other continents. He has been Executive Secretary of ROPPA (West Africa Farmers and Producers Organization). Prior to his position at IRPAD, he worked in West Africa with UNICEF, UNDP, OXFAM-Belgium and ACORD. He is a founding member of COPAGEN (the Coalition to Protect African Genetic Heritage) and AFSA (Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa). Mamadou is also on the advisory board for the joint Agroecology Fund and Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa research project: Supporting Agroecological Enterprises (AEEs) in Africa.

Photo credits: C. Perodeaud, IPES-Food (2018)